thelogicalview.co.uk

Tag: Iran

  • Trump -v- Iran: The road to Hell?

    To break this down, who is President Donald Trump? Who is Iran? What is Hell?

    Donald Trump is the elected President of the United States of America (identifiable in international politics by a flag and a national anthem). At their (this writer is neither American nor in America) last election it was all hands for Trump, meaning the overwhelming majority of both Houses and a wide diversity of humans and genders. Political commentators call this a landslide victory but this blog does not appropriate such terms for the use of modern politics.

    What is Iran? Iran is the land definition of the Islamic Republic of Iran, right central in the east-west historical complications arising from Christianity gaining power in the Roman Empire and disrupting the natural course of events. President Masoud Pezeshkian, only in leadership less than a year after the USA killed President Rainsi, is a heart surgeon and even though being President means he could not also be working as a heart surgeon, he would still be able to perform a complicated operation if needed.

    What is Hell? Hell is the place formalized by the Christians and their text, where non-believers will spend eternity while the believers live in heaven, but as with all of Christianity, it was constructed by appropriating all various aspects from contemporary Greek and Roman, and surrounding cultures, and all native cultures have our own particular beliefs about life on earth and the cosmos, and the humans within that. As yet there is no evidence of the Christian’s Hell, although there is abundant evidence of spirit life after death, and there is no evidence of their heaven either. Hell on earth however is now a reality and the stakes only get higher and higher.

    Why the title Trump -v- Iran? Should it not be Trump -v- Pezeshkian? A previous ‘post’ did ask of the difference between leader of land and leader of ideology, with the very simple demarcation of the leader of a land has nowhere else to go. They could be given a place in a friendly country, but they would still be the person of that land, not of their new living place. Running that line through present day leaders of the human world, it is a quick check on what exactly conflicts are about.

    Tribal conflicts are as olde as the hills, and took place and still do in and around hills, rivers, moorlands, equatorial forests, mountains and icy lands, but not as icy as Eskimos because they are too busy for such things and too desecrated by film crews arriving to film the last polar bear and in the process melting the very ice flow the polar bear needs, paradoxically. No, true tribal conflicts are a normal part of life on Earth. Each tribe has a leader, the people do not have much choice but because they are all so busy the folks don’t really make a fuss because they know the leader is doing his or her (Boudica a good example here) job and would be the first to die in conflict. That’s an honest way to live.

    The leader of a land however, is not that much difference to a tribal leader, only the scale is larger. They are still speaking for the land and the people of that land. The USA killed the previous Iranian leader but another one quickly stepped in. Some of the citizens might not like it, but the leadership continuity was fairly simple, and very continuous when compared with err… current events in the ‘UK’.

    That Donald Trump was elected by so many, so hoping for a simpler era and even the radio news had interviews of American citizens openly saying they would go through harder times willingly, just to get to that simpler state of affairs, where goods bought and consumed within America had been made in America. That is the equation of leadership to citizen, and the massive majority in the USA to end the hot air of the lefties and get back to something functional, well, there were a lot of folks who quietly said how they wished for something like that here. Such things have to be said quietly in the ‘UK’, such is the political conflict and the risk of being prosecution for having been radicalised for speaking facts.

    To take out a President not too far from your own centre of power is within the margins of reality and possibility, as Venezuela found earlier this year when the USA removed their President and took him away. But conflict far from geographical reality, on matters of religion – the Christian west -v- Middle East Islam, trade and energy – the blocking of just one small waterway on the planet of Earth has already resulted in global crisis, and the methods of warfare – now nuclear arms conflict, drones, warships in the Gulf region, all the various conflicts going on around Iran and which this writer is not entitled to comment on, and the supply of weapons and who is funding who, these three points could be said to constitute Hell on Earth.

    There would be a worse Hell, if Sol, Helios, Ghrian, throws a solar flare on the scale of the Carrington Event somewhere back 150 years ago, all electricity will fail on this spinning mass of rock in space. If Campi Flegrei in the Phlegraean Fields erupts that will change the course of events in 2026. And the ‘UK’ is facing a big Hell with its dwindling food and water resources and not a lot of friends left. But in this equation of the present Trump -v- Iran, where the President of Iran speaks for a land and yes with the Islamic religion on that land but with the long history of Arabic science and philosophy still intact, and Donald Trump speaks for military might and the USA resuming its global glory, where will this end?

    This blog has a useful suggestion which could be considered. It has already suggested that a new Nobel Peace Prize be hastily convened, that of Nuclear Dismantlement. If the model of France was followed that nuclear turns to heating homes and businesses then that reduces the need for oil at all then those Middle Eastern countries who have been destroyed by western need and greed might have a little more respect than is due at the moment. If there is no nuclear weapon as the overall threat then Iran might not be so keen to enrich their uranium.

    If all warfare was further reduced to no manufactured armourments, which includes drones, guns, warships, submarines, war planes, all remote surveillance and all arsenal in the smaller bombs and bullets what would be left?

    Archery would be left, a fine method of defence, hunting, and all round societal fitness. Knowing how to find the wood, make a bow, sharpen a flint for an arrowhead, these things are good for young people to learn. Hand to hand combat separates the men from the boys (as the phrase goes, and it had better not continue with the gender terms because it is illegal in the ‘UK’ to talk of function nowadays).

    Arm wrestling is a clear winner and loser, and can be observed by onlookers for any foul play. The armies at the frontier in centuries before air and digital warfare took its hold, that was horrible for those in that frontline, but it was clear at least. Or, clarity in the other direction could also be considered, that somebody with the power to approach that button, put their finger on the nuclear and just press. That would end Hell on Earth and the plight of the natural world which through no doing of its own finds its habitat disappearing, its food and survival just running out, and the changing temperatures forcing it to migrate into places it was never designed to exist and survive. Or maybe Sol could throw that solar flare, a strong overarm flare to reset reality on Earth if the leaders of the Protestant west cannot stop this progressive disintegration. If a poll was held with citizens obliged to vote, what would the citizens of the USA vote for now, so caught between the rock and the hard place they are?

    And where does it leave the population of Iran, also caught between a rock and a hard place with democracy having got its foot in the door? Where and what is Hell in 2026?

  • Nuclear equality?

    A Logical Blog asking Logical Questions

    The Equality of no Nuclear. Over the early months of the year 2025 by the Gregorian calendar, President Trump raised the subject of nuclear weapons, saying, ‘There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over.’

    In February statements spoke of America, Russia and China, and the idea of nuclear arms control, and that was said from the American President, not from Russia and China, but it was put out there. Where is ‘out there’? Well, that is into the modern digital tech world, entirely dependent on electricity from big power stations down to the i-phone charger, and without which nothing now would run, not that world leaders consider that real baseline.

    But out there it was stated, and then in early March President Trump told reporters that he was in favour of denuclearization amongst global powers. That would be the global powers who ‘have nuclear’, being the nine of America, China, Russia, France, the ‘UK’, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India.

    The nuclear spectre raised its head as Pakistan and India faced each other, the world held its breath, which of course is a meaningless term because the natural world never follows news events on a digital screen and it is only the human stuck is this strange in between, and President Trump again took the role of a leader and some talking was done, and the nuclear button was not pressed over on the complicated border region between Pakistan and India. Phew.

    Now the matter of nuclear weapons has swung the other way, not among the top dogs in the global realm who have this nuclear facility, but looking down the ladder, the same President Trump took on Iran with a smaller than could have been missile lobbed over, and Iran responded with a smaller than could have been, and possibly the heat was taken out of the explosive situation, for the time being. That’s clever leadership tactics too, because leaders should be engaging with each other in that mixture of talking for mutual benefit or engaging in a kind of thinking martial arts tactics because leadership is a difficult role, and for us masses, it is none of our business to sit and opinionate all day when we don’t have any responsibility.

    This blog is not an opinion but a measurement, and as the question of nuclear arms has appeared in these various ways in the first half of this year, it would be a very good idea to freeze the frame and keep both directions on view, before they sink beneath the daily new events in this tragic human world. As 9 countries have nuclear weapons, and they are meant to be a deterrent, why should Iran not have one, or a few, too? The west says nuclear weapons aren’t safe in countries not part of the civilized western world, and already views North Korea as somewhere far out on the fringes of inclusion. But if nuclear weapons are a deterrent should not every jurisdiction have a nuclear? Then it would be an equal safety for all.

    Looking the other way, up the ladder, to return to President Trump’s radical statements on denuclearisation made only a few months ago, will this be the paradigm missed in the modern era? If, on paper, a little diagram was doodled of the lower orders, seen as mad, bad and dangerous and who must at all costs be prevented from gaining these dangerous nuclear facilities, up through the perceived order of things to the major powers who believe they and their nukes hold the balance of peace, why can we not start at the top line instead of the bottom line?

    As the ‘UK’ gears up to invest more in missile and arms manufacture, and talks of security in this dangerous age, yet at the same time relies on manufactured goods from all those countries who come in for the stinging criticism from the pious ‘UK’, and as gun boats were despatched to the Channel Islands to scare France, not so many years ago over fishing questions, the existence of nuclear weapons designed to obliterate the enemy only stands like a great towering mountain, brooding over the daily life below.

    If President Tump followed though on his statements given out a few months ago on denuclearization amongst the global powers, what would the world look like, the human world that is? Or rather, if it was followed through to actual denuclearization? If no country has any nuclear weapons the top slice of stress would be evenly sliced off, the line brought down evenly instead of the see-saw reactions and this Russian roulette of friend or foe. If all jurisdictions were nearer ground level and the nuclear deterrent became a nuclear equality of no one has nuclear, how much aggravation would evaporate in international relations?

    It would a really good weekend event if the leaders of the 9 met for a serious chat. Are we going to actually use a nuclear? If not, just come down and start the dismantling process. Such a move would show that global co-operation is possible, and maybe the best proof of all, and really there’s nothing to lose because no world leader would really want to go down in history as the one who pressed the button, not that anyone would know about it anyway after that, but still…not great if there is any posterity. But if a summit of 9 came out and announced that hereinafter the line of this towering aggravation will be now calmly taken down quite a few notches, what is there to lose? And there would be a lot to gain.

  • A Logical Blog

    Trump -v- Iran – a Disaster Day for Logic?

    Trump -v- Iran on Summer Solstice 2025 – a Disaster Day for Logic? What on Earth has happened this weekend? As Solar time remains the same as ever, human time has now gone mad. The news of a rapid escalation of ‘events’ in the ‘middle East’, the term given by the west because of the spin of the earth, spinning into Sunrise and where there is no middle because there is no beginning or end of a spin, is this the last nail in the coffin of logical government? Or, has President Donald Trump massively shot himself in the foot?

    Is it the same man who somewhere back in February of this year said words to the effect that the USA had plenty of nuclear missiles ‘which could destroy the world 50 times over’ so why add more, and were there not noises of talks between President Trump, Russia and China about ‘de-nuclearization’? No more missiles is one thing, but a coming down, a de-nuclear, is, or was, possibly the most Logical action anyone could take in the human world in this present time. An open-handed action to bring a line down would have filtered down a great deal of other matters, like the biological world has a vast network of seen and unseen processes going on in the zone around one fact, and which the modern humans have well lost sight of.

    In this muddling of geography, ethnicity, belief, historical let’s call them ‘matters’, not to mention the climate disaster (some call it change), and the imminent collapse of supply chains, water supply, etc., if President Trump had followed through on that comment of de-nuclearization, how much would that have filtered on down through the chaos going on? Intention is like the subtle zone in the biological realm, it is not quantifiable yet has a profound factual outworking.

    The ‘middle East’ is geographically and ethnically neither western Europe nor the USA, which is its own landmass with ocean on both sides. It could be said that the nuclear issue is the nastiest of all controversies between the different political zones on Earth. In this crazy age of globalism where the ‘west’ seeks to bring (or impose) democracy and individual values on just about everywhere from North to South Pole and all around Earth, the nuclear issue stands totally opposite to that, the nuclear powers retain the right to err.. retain their nuclear weapons, while telling other countries (and where the divisions are already there in history, religion, culture) that they are very, very bad for wanting a nuclear weapon.

    If nuclear weapons are so bad that some countries cannot have them, and the USA, or President Trump himself ordered, that Iran should be attacked without warning, then Logically the only solution is that probably now throw-away phrase (because it has been thrown away) of “de-nuclearization”. Why has this President who was overwhelmingly voted in for the hope that some common sense can be slotted into the last days of human existence on earth committed this completely idiotic act?

    As well as heightening the nuclear issue with these ‘bad Iranians’, the credibility which President Trump had in restoring some common sense to trade (and apologies to all the hard working trades people who are affected by tariffs but overall, that is common sense and a pity the UK doesn’t have a leader who thinks of its own security) has now evaporated. Any people or any country which is humiliated, as Iran now is, doesn’t bow the knee and accept their wrongdoing, it only makes bad matters so much worse.

    Nearly there was a nuclear button pressed between Pakistan and India, so recently, and it was the same President of the USA who quickly stepped in, and the world breathed a sigh of relief, disaster averted. Now the same President does this inflammatory and idiotic action in the middle East like a bull in a china shop.

    As the UK does not have any, or not nearly enough, young people who could turn up to even train for a fighting army let alone go off and actually do it, and as there are nuclear weapons in the UK, this would be such a very good opportunity for the UK government to show it had some teeth and unilaterally announce that it is to disarm its nuclear weapons. Hypocracy is just the worst situation of all and on the principle of ‘if you don’t use it, then lose it’ which is usually used for cognitive brain exercises that if you don’t keep active then you lose your faculties, but applying that to nuclear weapons, if the UK are not intending to actually use the nuclear weapons then what’s the point of all that time, money and effort to maintain them, and the UK could be the first to both announce and act – the two together – that it is beginning to dismantle all nuclear facilities.

    A long time ago philosophers from Damas, Cairo, Paris, London, would meet and discuss, and a long time ago the trading network on the major ports and inland networks from there, all took full account of difference in geography, culture, belief, language, the long history, and it was a vibrant and engaged world. That time has passed and will never again be possible, because the west has burnt the bridges behind and in front, but of all the actions which could put the widest and most pervasive signal that this high tide mark is very very bad, if President Trump had continued on the de-nuclearization idea and even if just an idea, instead of what has happened this Summer Solstice weekend, then maybe the tide would have turned back and something of a normal ebb and flow just might have held. Instead we have a tsunami of god knows what, and the concept of governance in shreds.

    Thank goodness Solar times does still hold. The northern hemisphere on Earth is now going into shorter days, less Light, down to the Winter Solstice, from where the baby Light will be born and the days slowly slowly lengthen again. No hope of such predictability for the human realm now.